tv [untitled] February 21, 2011 6:30am-7:00am PST
, and there is a greater latitude for the design element. lastly is salvage and recycling. [chime] president olague: thank you. >> hi, my name is patty, thank you for the opportunity to speak. they are on tour right now. they cannot be here. they tried to meet with many of the neighbors to talk about their plan. the house that exists right now does not have a proper bedroom. it has an attic with no proper means of egress. it is not really a good house for the neighborhood. the kids can play in all kinds of neighborhoods and it is a
beautiful thing. it will be a really wonderful family home. it will make the neighborhood better. which is a good thing. >> are there additional speakers in support of the project sponsor? you will have two minutes each. >> thank you. the owners never tried to meet with any of us. we requested a meeting to discuss the property development and we never received any reply. we got an e-mail back from germany into the games began. not one person stood up and said, keep doing it.
the overwhelming majority are saying please do not perform -- to demolish the existing building. it shows that they will put solar panels on the roof. i have solar panels on my roof. if you put panels flat, they done to generate any electricity. they have to be at least a four- foot rake. ten-foot high up. lastly, everything i'm reading says the most energy-efficient buildings are the ones that you don't knock down. the data suggests putting that thing in place. president olague: thank you. >> for this process to work, you
have to rely on the information you get from the project sponsor. this evening, they stood up and told you i have three stories over a bay. my next-door neighbor's house is the same height as mine. it is the same height. he told the that they want at housing. you heard that his mother lives in san jose and they will occupy the studio apartment. this is a very large mansion that is being built by a rock star and comes here occasionally. they own the property for at least a year and a half. we are across the street. they rented the property for a year. that property was not granted for -- rented. they occupied it happily. we got to know them.
we never met the owners. this was scheduled at their request. they wanted to move because it is a friendly neighborhood. as you saw, 68 people came together to let you know that this is not consistent with our neighborhood. this is not who we are. we have worked together, we raised our children together. these people have not understood what this neighborhood is about and they want to impose their style. it is a gift we would like to return. we did not ask for it. it is not consistent. the way they have approached you and us is not consistent with the way the planning commission works. we urge you to grant to the review. -- grant the review. >> i would like to emphasize a
couple of points. the requests we made were reasonable. the owners never met with us despite multiple requests from our group to meet with them. a three story building would be in line and consistent. second, the property developers have not met their burden. look closely at the information that is being provided to you. a lot of the information is being misrepresented. it is very important because the decision you are about to make could lead to the destruction of a piece of property that would leave the same building in another part of the neighborhood that has been found to be historical. i think if you look at the model, it does not fit in with
the neighborhood that we have built here in san francisco. we are proud of it and we are very unique. once you approve it, it cannot be returned. one thing that is important, while you have a celebrity architect, as you noted yourself, he has been here a very long time. we have been basically bowled over by this process. every maneuver that has been possible in order to get this through has been done. you want to be very careful as you look at this. three stories was sufficient. what is being proposed is really out of character with the neighborhood. i encourage you to ask for the further review. [chime] president olague: thank you.
project sponsor, you have two minutes. >> if we can go to the computer, please. before i get to them, i would like to point out that we had two group meetings, and several with other members as well. there has been a lot of review of this. we have pushed substantially back from the street. we are offering a lot of math. this is the existing house. this would be a buildable volume if we are trying to retain the existing house. this is the maximum buildable
area. this is what we are proposing. a much smaller building that is allowable by code. it is a very interesting problem being posed by this site. you can see the hash mark buildings across the street and behind us are the ones that are the dr requestors. they are larger buildings with larger footprints. we are doing this on a 125 foot lot. it is very appropriately designed. we are in full compliance. the planning department recommends approval. i want to point out the residential design guidelines suggested this. this is what the original guidelines guide us to do. we have done something far less
massive and far more appropriate for this site. the top is set back 22 feet from the property line. this is 15 feet from the property line with a projection over the sidewalk. we are pushing back from the sidewalk. the post has stairs and an entryway which is being cleared. that we are overbearing on the sidewalk is wrong. we will be providing more space in the front setback. we are not reaching the level of extraordinary exceptional circumstances. this is a good building for this site. it is very carefully designed. i believe it is worthy of your approval. president olague: the public hearing is closed. commissioner antonini: i am
usually very supportive of a family trying to develop something to meet their needs. this one kind of goes over the line a little bit. first of all, the existing building is 1915. it is a problem. they would probably have to be raised up before. to make it to meet the family needs, you would have to do quite a bit too late. i would certainly like to hear what the commissioners have to say. on the issue of the new construction, this is a beautifully designed, but it does not fit on the street. it does not matter whether there is a variety of different styles, they have something in common. in a kind of contrast, we just
heard as far as the facade was concerned, it was a contemporary building but it fit very nicely with the other homes on that street. it could be done. as far as the height issue, i am not as concerned. certainly a pitched roof or something similar would fit in very nicely and would medicaid some of the concerns about the top floor even though it is set back. the window treatments, i think that planning had talked to them as you do with other houses on the street. it might be that it is a distribution of the glazing. it seems to me that it is kind of intruding on the privacy a
little bit and we certainly could have windows or a bit more keeping with the moldings. the setback issue is a borderline. is it really set back in the other areas? i am not quite sure about that. i would certainly be supportive of taking d.r. if we improved -- approved the demolition, a significant redesign. commissioner moore: i want to step back a little bit and talked to mr. paul. there is a missing link. how the building is not code compliant because it misses a sound in this report that tells us in this building has outlived its useful life.
we don't have that. we're having in noncompliant building. we're going up against what we have spent a lot of time on last year. that is the strategy that gives very specific instructions to us unless there are really clear reasons to protect the housing stock. having saidt hat, -- that, i personally do not feel we'd engage much in appreciating or not appreciating the buildings that have been designed. the analysis and the drawings are very thoughtful. they are all responding to the most subtle elements. that is primarily the scale. i can see a contemporary
building, but it looks quite different from what is in front of us. the basic premise, i am not even sure what we are talking about. commissioner miguel: i also have a problem with hot demolishing the livable building. this is not a building that has to come down. i have been in it. it has an odd floor plan. the main bedroom is the attic area. it is not uncommon. i actually have that. however, the building being proposed is basically one unit, an accessory unit.
you are replacing one for one. if what was proposed here was a true two-unit building, i might think of this differently. but i can see no reason for the demolition. president olague: i think this is an example of why certain commissioners are not willing to give dr's up. this is a sort of project that would have been allowed if the dr process wasn't in place. it is unfortunate over the years the other neighborhoods we have seen folks decide to invest in homes that are perfectly sound that would be appropriate for many families where many families have lived and raised
their children. i think it is unfortunate that people choose to buy a sound home with the intention of demolishing it. i don't support the demolition in this case. i am also very familiar with the valley and i don't think that this design is really compatible with the existing neighborhood at all. i think it is a nice design, someone mentioned a different neighborhood but not here. i have been very cautious, even about historic preservation ordinances. i can see, when we looka at projects like this, why certain preservationists
are pulling their harir out. people decide to move into a neighborhood based on the character and based on these types of projects, it is removing character from the neighborhood. i don't support the demolition. i don't support this project. until we see if the movement along these types of projects, i support the commission's continuing to hear discretionary reviews. commissioner moore: i have not heard any convincing story about why this building needs to be read demolished -- needs to be demolished or redesigned. and we have the benefit of seeing the building. it is a pretty consistent story,
particularly for many of us. and so, the story does not quite at the -- add up. the unit almost compares to the rest of the house. it doesn't convince me as an argument. my motion is to deny the project. >> second. >> i just wanted to clarify a couple of these issues. there is not a report required. there is not a requirement in this kind of situation. the second thing just to clarify, our proposed package
would bring all new construction to you. that was the policy that we proposed a long time ago. >> the motion on the floor is for both demolition and reconstruction, to take the discretionary review and disapprove. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner miguel: aye. commissioner moore: aye. >> thank you, commissioners. [applause] president olague: we are going to take a ten minute break. i apologize to the folks that have been waiting for treasure island. president olagu>> commissionersn
item 16. the treasure island redevelopment project. >> i am a member of the planning staff. beginning the adoption process, tonight we will give you informational overview of the project. lee will give the revisions to the planning cut and zoning map -- we will give you revisions to the planning code and zoning map. the community facilities plan, the housing program, as well as other key project documents and redevelopment agreements.
they also have a design review and document approval procedure. on april 7, the commission will hold a joint public hearing with the board of directors to consider the project's eir and entitlement documents. this will mark a major milestone for treasure island. the planning commission formulated the preliminary plan in august of 1999, and the subsequent hearing in november of 2008, the amended project is part of the initial redevelopment plan adoption process. we were asked to before you in march of 2010, planning staff
has worked closely with the office of economic work force development over the last several years on creating this vision for treasure island. i want good knowledge of the work of the planning staff, and in a minute, we will talk to the others involved. they have been helping us with the adoption process. >> has been working with me the last couple of years out because he is taking some time off to visit your father. and the team headed by others there, in your packets, we provided you with the following documents. the draft redevelopment plan, the phasing plan, the disposition development agreement, rules and regulations
document. the information for the initiation hearing is provided to you. this will initiate general plan amendments. a draft ordinance for planning amendments. a draft ordinance for a zoning map amendments. additionally, as i mentioned earlier, the materials related to the presentation on march 3 will be transmitted to you separately next thursday. this will sort of lead you through the overview of the project.
as always, staffas here. -- taff is h -- staff is here. >> thank you for accommodating us today in your calendar for the ongoing couple of weeks. this is a major milestone in the process. we are moving from the planning and entitlement phase that is going on for over a decade, it will move to the implementation phase. we hope to have this project fully entitled. we are excited about that not just for the process reasons, but we are ready to begin implementing a very exciting project. i have only been involved for a couple or short months. there has been a ton of involvement fashioning what you will see in the next couple of
meetings from our citizens advisory board from this body, to staff, the residents living on treasure island. i think it is vastly improved from what it was a decade ago. it is a challenging project, currently only one way on and off the bridge. we hope to shirley the development proposal response to that. it makes it a exciting, unique neighborhood that any of us would want to call home. we'll give you a quick overview of the development process. we will lead you through the plan and we will talk about the phasing plan quickly.
in the housing transition strategy. these were the cornerstones that we presented to you in april. this is the lens we look at when we are talking about examining the project. sustainability is key in the project. it has been recognized for sustainability. parks and recreation, there is a host of new parks to smaller neighborhood parks that we thin are -- think are key to making this a vibrant community. and the creation of new jobs, both permanent and construction.
the development program has not changed. this is primarily a new residential neighborhood with a thousand new homes, -- 8,000 new homes. 500 hotel rooms, 450,000 square feet of new retail in existing buildings. the process we have gone through has been long. congress and the president selected ti for closure in 1993. it is basically a single-use development agency. 2000 and 2002, and we selected
our development partners that have been instrumental in developing this plan. in 2006, we got an initial term sheet and development plan to improve the board of supervisors. in 2010, basically as a response to the economy, we issue the draft environmental report. these are the planned future, it will take up additional aspect of the project. in the transportation plan on the third. hopefully, eir certification and approval of the entitlement documents. it was published in july of
2010. we are getting the response to comments. the public will have 30 days. just a note of the government oppose the proposal. it is a current budget into lemonade redevelopment and eliminate the powers. we are obviously following this closely. sorry. [laughter] you are a rock star. [laughter] we are monitoring this closely.